Zwiebach question with link to text

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Link Text
ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


http://books.google.com/books?id=Xm...GCQ&sig=Eqnkxjj7B9gc4-nig1fgUkk7AqQ#PPA207,M1
As you can see on page 207, Zwiebach obtained 12.6 by simply demanding that it be true.
He does this also in chapter 11 with equations such as 11.27 (which I do not think is on the free preview). He just postulates that they are true and then he uses them in later calculations!
I have no idea what he is thinking! How can he just say for example. "equation 11.58 is reasonable" and then pretend like it is true without proving it!

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution

 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I keep asking this question but it seems to never get answered? Is it just that I am so lost that it would take to long to explain it to me?

This is a crucial concept and if I understood it I would probably have a ton fewer questions about other stuff...
 
I have been most reluctant to answer this question because I am not sure of myself and would prefer that nrqed, or someone else with more insight than I have, would tackle this. I hope that my poor attempt will not mislead and will not discourage anyone from providing a more insightful answer.

Chapter IV of "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics" by P.A.M. Dirac is a very lucid discussion of this topic. I'm sure that a similar discussion can be found in most introductory texts on QM. Of course, I cannot quote the chapter in its entirety, but here is a relevant excerpt (emphasis mine):

Dirac (page 88) said:
It follows that any function of q_r and p_r will commute with any function of q_s and p_s when s differs from r. Different values of r correspond to different degrees of freedom of the dynamical system, so we get the result that dynamical variables referring to different degres of freedom commute. This law, as we have derived it from (9), is proved only for dynamical systems with classical analogues, but we assume it to hold generally. In this way we can make a start on the problem of finding quantum conditions for dynamical systems for which canonical coordinates and momenta do not exist, provided we can give meaning to different degrees of freedom, as we may be able to to with the help of physical insight.
I think you will find that in the commutation relations that you have been quoting, that they consist of the quintessential pq - qp = i along with enough Kronecker deltas and Dirac delta functions to implement the assumption concerning 'different degrees of freedom'. If I am right, Zwiebach is 'assuming' the deltas as Dirac predicted he would.
 
In the meantime, I found/thought of another answer.

The [p-hat,x-hat] = i h-bar commutator in regular quantum mechanics can be derived by using p-hat = - i h-bar d/dx and x-hat = x.

But where do those expressions for p-hat and x-hat come from? The Schrodinger equation.
And where does the Schrodinger equation come frome? Nowhere, it is an ansatz that seems to work.

So, in a sense that commutator is equivalent to the Schrodinger equation.

I think Zwiebach is doing the same thing. He is using those commutators as an ansatz and then deriving lots of equations that seem reasonable therefore justifying the original ansatz.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top